Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The neighbour's house is built right on the boundary so the side of their house is effectively the 'wall' in our garden separating the two properties. It's a three storey house and so the mortar poses a potential danger to us. Because of the danger, we have put up an interior fence in our garden to ensure we don't risk mortar dropping on us. That reduces the garden by 25% which is not only an inconvenience, but it's the part of the garden where we had lined up contractors to install a patio and gazebo which we will use for our wedding reception in less than 2 months. We have spoken to the neighbour's caretaker who is on the case, has spoken with a roofer and possibly a scaffolding company, but there are several issues. They don't seem to understand the urgency. As long as there is a risk of falling mortar, we can't carry out any work in the garden, and unless they hurry up, we're looking at cancelling our wedding as it's not viable to book a venue because we can't use our own garden! Also, they want to put the scaffolding up in our garden which would be ok with us if it was a matter of a few days and they hurried up, but there is a tree (most likely protected by the conservation area), so most likely they can only reach part of the roof with the scaffolding if they put it up in our garden. We suggested a roofer with a cherry picker but they seem to want to use a company they've used before. Any and all comments, suggestions, advice is more than welcome.  PS. does it make any difference that the neighbour is a business (ltd) and not a private dwelling?
    • No apology needed, thank you for what you do I am glad to hear they paid. well done on getting back what is yours
    • Apologies all for the late reply and info, i have been away with the Army. They have paid I accepted the offer on the 5th of May, and they paid on the 17th of May.
    • Hello everyone,   Just thought id post an update.   I've today now finally received a claim form from PRA Group. Bit annoying as the last payment to them would have August 2018 so was nearly over the line. I believe my only grounds for defence is that they haven't managed to produce a copy of the DN notice, however from some online research I managed to find some case law that stated they can use their systems screenshot to show proof of it being sent.   I know I have to respond back to their claim form and will do so online on moneyclaim, is now the time to pick up the phone to them and negotiate a deal?   Any advice as always is much appreciated it.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

walton v rbos


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4880 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

The first installment will be aired today at 4.30 with my MP speaking.

 

Radio Sheffield.

 

Paul

 

Not heard anything yet Paul - been listening since 4.30....

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Not heard anything yet Paul - been listening since 4.30....

 

Cheers

Michael

 

I believe the station couldn't get a hold of my MP yesterday.]

 

I'll keep you posted.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the station couldn't get a hold of my MP yesterday.]

 

I'll keep you posted.

 

 

flippin eck what a disappointment!!

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

:eek:

:D

 

 

After advice could you remove the above post and forget about what i've just posted.

 

Or could a Mod remove it.

 

 

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

After advice could you remove the above post and forget about what i've just posted.

 

Or could a Mod remove it.

 

 

 

Paul

 

I think this particular cat is out of the bag - and won't be getting back in to it for some time...

 

;):p

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this particular cat is out of the bag - and won't be getting back in to it for some time...

 

;):p

 

Mums the word though.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a brilliant piece of legislation and i am sure it will be used more often in the future. So bully banks watch this space. Well done Paul.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been informed that the bank have stated to the BBC that interest which has accrued would be rightfully owed if the account had not been subjected to the judgment. This is a serious misleading statement.

 

Paul.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been informed that the bank have stated to the BBC that interest which has accrued would be rightfully owed if the account had not been subjected to the judgment. This is a serious misleading statement.

 

Paul.

 

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well bad luck maybe we need to introudce them to CAG they would love the exposure then.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

 

They can charge interest post Judgment but only if it's in the T's & C's of the original agreement which in this case it isn't. To recap the agreement that the bank incorrectly claimed was a true copy had their much later T's & C's which do allow for the charging of contractual interest after Judgment.

 

If Paul hadn't found the true original sitting in his loft he wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise

 

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

See in red above

Agreed but I understand the media have at last cottoned on to their game & are now asking awkward question the answers to which differ each time

 

Whenever they are caught out & have no counter argument they always resort to "it was a mistake & shouldn't have happened & Mr Walton should ignore the paperwork blah blah etc:"

 

I think that even the most credulous person has now got to start understanding that the banks are being, how should I say, 'disingenuous'

Link to post
Share on other sites

See in red above

Agreed but I understand the media have at last cottoned on to their game & are now asking awkward question the answers to which differ each time

 

Whenever they are caught out & have no counter argument they always resort to "it was a mistake & shouldn't have happened & Mr Walton should ignore the paperwork blah blah etc:"

 

I think that even the most credulous person has now got to start understanding that the banks are being, how should I say, 'disingenuous'

 

I will be having a chat with my MP tomorrow. Hopefully the Sh** will it the fan on Monday.

 

The program will be aired just after twelve on Radio 4 and early afternoon on BBC Radio Sheffield.

 

My Honourable MP John Healy will be speaking as well as a representative from the CAB. Should be fun.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Are they admitting that they can't apply post-Judgment interest there? Stating the bleeding obvious, about 9 years too late, if they are!

 

 

They're kind of saying..... we have no entitlement to apply post judgment interest to his account... but if we had, this is what Mr Walton would owe.

 

The bank claimed in the Guardian this is a cock-up, i claim conspiracy. And i don't like being labeled as vexatious and a fantasist.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Without going in to the technicalities, as I'd have to presume an awful lot anyway, it looks like the Bank are hoping to influence the eventual exposure they'll get from this to their advantage, IMHO.

 

Confusing? Yes, but I'd call it underhand instead.

 

Any exposure they receive from this will damaging.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe banking records are deemed prima facia... in otherwords to be correct.

 

Like joncris as stated i would have been well and truly shafted if i had not found my original agreement.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not making sense to me.

 

can someone please explain what is going on please

 

the bank are confusing me

 

 

1 I default on a personal loan and overdraft.

 

2 Whilst in default, and without my knowledge or consent the bank pays my personal loan balance off with a significantly different type of loan, interest is then rebated pursuant to sec 95 CCA 1974 and my personal loan is closed, in addition they convert my overdraft into a loan account.

 

3 The bank then sees me has a bad risk customer and sets up a book debt account which consist of both the above accounts and only ever shows an indebtedness figure. I believe this is required for tax purposes!.

 

4 Both accounts start to accrue quarterly compound contractual interest whilst i'm trying to negotiate a reduced payment. Note, interest is now accruing three months prior to judgment.

 

5 The bank obtain judgment and set up a judgment account,

 

6 The bank are now operating the judgment account independent to the contract. Without ever having legal entitlement!. And are continuing to do so.

 

7 The actus reus was when the bank decided to forward fake agreements which were an attempt to mislead me into believing they have legal entitlement to apply such interest.

 

I hope that comes across a bit clearer to you and especially to the guests.

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...